HL Deb 29 June 1926 vol 64 cc625-52

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF BALFOUR)

My Lords, as you are aware, this Bill is intended to carry into effect the recommendations of a Committee appointed by Mr. Trevelyan, a member of the late Cabinet, and by the late Government, whose work, after the late Government went out of office, was continued without a break. The Bill therefore itself depends for all its importance and all its significance upon the Report which it is intended to carry into effect. That follows very accurately and very properly, I think, numerous precedents set with regard to other Universities, and indeed with regard to the University of London itself. I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with any reference to the Bill, but I think that you would like to know some of the general considerations which have made it, in the opinion of successive Governments belonging to different Parties, a matter of urgent necessity to carry out some broad reforms in connection with the great University to which the Bill refers.

The University of London stands by itself, I think, among all the Universities of the world. There is nothing, as far as I am aware, quite like it. It differs in many fundamental respects from any other University whose constitution I, at all events, have had the opportunity of studying, and some of the difficulties inevitably arise from the fact that it has had a past which has made it the very remarkable body with which we now have to deal. It is not, as some of our English and Scottish Universities go, an old University, and it began with the institution of two separate colleges, both, indeed, having the common end of improving University education, but founded originally upon very different principles, and with very different views. They were, indeed, in their inception, rivals. The first to be brought into being was University College, but very soon afterwards King's College was established, which, in the opinion of its founders, carried out certain educational objects with which University College did not concern itself. It was found impossible to join those organically into a single University until a bond of union was found in the common examination system. That is, of course, quite a novel form of giving unity to a University, and it developed in the case of London into the remarkable system of external students—that is, of students who have, speaking broadly, no important relation with the University from which they expect their degree and to which they have matriculated, except that which is provided by the examination which all students are expected to pass.

That system, so far as the external students are concerned, leaves out a great deal that most of us think very valuable in University life. It leaves out, on the whole, any relation between the University as a teaching body and the University as an examining body, and it leaves out all those imponderable benefits which those of us who are fortunate enough to have had a University training know are some of the most important things which a University can give us. Evidently the external student can hardly obtain those, but we are clearly of opinion that, although the external system is one which nobody would recommend as the general practice in Universities, it does fulfil a purpose which no other system can fulfil, and the Commission and the Government in introducing this Bill are earnestly desirous that nothing should be done which could in the smallest degree imperil the efficiency of this examination system. In my opinion it is quite undeniable that an external student does not get, and cannot get, all the advantages which a full University training gives to those who are fortunate enough to obtain it, but there are many people who cannot obtain it, and it is most desirable in our opinion that we should retain effectively and in full efficiency a system which, although it does not give everything which a University is capable of giving, does give a great deal, sets a standard of learning, gives a stimulus to study, and does bring together as graduates of a single University men of different residence and different training, men whose years of learning have perhaps beeen passed far from the Mother Country, and who can in this way obtain some of the most important advantages which a modern University can give.

I mention this as one of the respects in which London University differs most profoundly from other Universities. But it is not the only thing. London University started with the two more or less rival colleges, University College and King's College, which are now incorporated into the University; but round them, as it were crystallised round that centre, are no less than thirty-six other bodies, making thirty- eight in all, if my memory serves me, of other organised teaching institutions of the most varied character and carrying out an extraordinary multiplicity of objects. Let me remind your Lordships of some of them. The two central colleges, of course, give a full University education and cover the whole ground commonly described as University education. The other colleges also in some cases give a full University training; in other cases they confine themselves to one special branch of learning. There are medical schools, engineering schools and science schools. There are post-graduate schools devoted to research. Some of these bodies might almost be described as very superior secondary schools, so great is the variety of these constituent elements in the University.

But that really is not all. They differ not only in their objects but, in their size. Some of these colleges, devoted to special branches of knowledge and not attempting to cover the whole ground of general University education, are very important from their numbers, their high standing, the extraordinary variety of their professoriate and from their power of contributing, not indeed to the general culture of the people, but to some of the most vital and important parts of the education with which every great community now must, at the most serious peril to itself, see that it is well provided. There are great medical schools. There is the great School of Science and Technology known as the Imperial College. There is the London School of Economics. I will not enumerate them all; I will only remind your Lordships again that the variety of institutions, large and small, general in their objects and particular in their objects, with which any Bill touching upon the London University has to deal has no parallel, so far as I am aware, in this country or perhaps in any other.

There is one special kind of college on which I think I must say one word—the colleges giving a general education and giving that general education in connection with some religious denomination. There is, as noble Lords are aware, a famous school of theology in connection with King's College. There is a Wesleyan College and there are other colleges of the same kind. Their peculiarity is that they desire connection with the London University in so far as their secular University matters are concerned; but, quite naturally and properly, they do not want any interference with that which marks them off as being devoted to the interests of one particular religious denomination. That adds a further and not unimportant complication to the general problems which have to be dealt with by legislation and which, in a preliminary sense, have been considered by the Departmental Committee on whose findings legislation is to be based.

How is this heterogeneous body of autonomous or semi-autonomous institutions governed at the present moment? It is governed by a Senate which, with all its merits and great as is the distinction of the gentlemen who compose it, requires, as the Committee think and as we think, reformation in more than one particular. In the first place, the Senate is required by Statute to be an executive body. It is far too big to be an executive body in the full sense and cover all the things that have to be done in a University so large and so complex as that which I have very roughly endeavoured to describe to your Lordships. It is almost certainly condemned—I will not say to impotence because that would be using language too strong for the occasion; but, drawn as it is from many heterogeneous sources and numerous as it is, its difficulties in acting efficiently and quickly have been the despair of many of its members and have inflicted great difficulties at all events upon those who desire to see the University of London develop with all the strength and all the efficiency of which its admirable materials are most certainly capable.

The Senate of the University of London is too big. It is also composed in some respects of the wrong elements. It contains at present representatives of certain professional bodies of great distinction, great influence and great importance, but which have no connection really with University training. There is no reason why they should have members upon the Senate. They augment its numbers, but they can hardly be said to increase its efficiency. I feel confident that the Committee which reported and whose Report we are considering were well justified in saying that these extraneous elements should be excluded from the Senate, and that in their place should be put certain representatives of University interests which are now, most unfortunately, excluded. The Committee think, for example, and surely the Committee are right in so thinking, that the institutions of which, in fact, the University is composed should be represented as institutions in the Senate, which is the representative of the graduates and others who have had their education at the University. I cannot think that is a doubtful point. It is clear to me that that is right. The teaching body is represented in the Senate as it is; but the places where they teach, the organised institutions of which they are members and through which all their utility comes, have no representation upon the Senate, and it is proposed, as I think most rightly, that they should obtain it.

The result of that change will be to diminish the size of the Senate from fifty-six to forty-eight, I think it is. So far it is not only a reform in the character of the constituents of the Senate, but it is an improvement as regards numbers. I think we shall all admit that the criticism that I have passed upon the number, fifty-six, for an executive body applies almost as much to the new body which it is proposed to create, although that contains forty-eight instead of fifty-six. Forty-eight is an impossible body to carry out executive functions, but the Senate, under existing legislation, though it is itself of the utmost importance, is not empowered to give to the Committee any executive functions at all. They can only be advisory bodies, so that you have important advisory bodies advising the Senate, and some of those advisory bodies, unless I have misread the Report, are themselves advised by other boards. In managing a great University you must have something more than good advice. You must have some management machinery for putting that advice into execution. You must have some-machinery which is capable of doing more than deal with debatable issues. You must have bodies of manageable size to carry out immensely complicated work so that the immensely complicated institution that I have spoken of to your Lordships may be properly governed.

I do not know if it is necessary that I should describe in any detail, or even describe at all, the Standing Committees to which it is proposed to give executive functions, or the possibility of executive functions, but I must mention one which is new. The old ones I need not deal with. There is an Academic Committee, an External Committee—I mean a committee dealing with the interests of the external students—and there is an Extension Committee. The Committee proposed, in addition to this, to have a committee dealing with the separate units of which the University is composed—the separate colleges of the infinitely varied kind and importance of which I have attempted to give some account. That will be another committee and, again, it will advise. But it will not only advise: it can have given to it what it could not have given to it under existing legislation, the executive powers which it is so absolutely necessary that these committees should possess.

There is one other great gap in the committees, the most important gap of all, the gap in any University machinery for distributing money grants that are given by Government, by the London County Council, and which come from other sources. The machinery for dealing with these grants is incredibly unsatisfactory. Any man to whom you referred the matter without his having had an opportunity of previous study would say that if the Government, for example—they are the largest contributors and I take them as an illustration—are to give public funds to the University and the University itself is made up of an immense number of subsidiary autonomous institutions, the distributing authority should be the University. Under the existing system it has been found impossible to make the University the distributing body and it is not the distributing body. The University Grants Committee and the London County Council have got to go over all the thirty-eight institutions making up the University and to consider from the result of their own inquiries and on their own authority how the grant which is nominally given to the University is to be distributed among the elements of which the University itself is composed. That is a wholly indefensible system.

There may be some who are ready to say that it has worked well. Having regard to the admirable character of the bodies who have attempted this tremendous task of distribution, I do not pretend to say that I think it has worked ill, but the distributing bodies themselves vehemently object to having this responsibility thrown upon them. And why should it be thrown upon them? One of the greatest objects that every lover of University education has in view, when he desires support from the Government of the day, is that academic freedom should be maintained, although public money is expended in supporting the University itself. You want to combine the full freedom of University teaching, which is the glory of every University worthy of the name, with well-deserved assistance from the State. But how can you possibly do that if you turn the State not only into a contributor to the University in the form of a block grant, but also into a judge which is to consider all the separate merits of the various elements out of which the University is loosely built and to distribute according to its own discretion and good will the public money amongst them? That is a most improper system, I think, to impose upon the University.

That most competent body, the University Grants Committee, have thrown upon them duties which they carry out to the best of their ability and, if I may say so, carry out with admirable discretion, but they object strongly to having thrown upon them a responsibility which obviously belongs to the University itself, but which they cannot give to the University so long as the University has no better organ for its distribution than the Senate. The result of it all is that the Committee find themselves obliged to advise a new and most important element in the governing constitution of the University. They propose that there shall be established a University Council which shall be supreme in matters of finance, which shall have power to distribute the block grant that, without doubt, the University Grants Committee will continue to give them, without having to appeal to the Senate or to any other body for any modification or recommendation in connection with their proposals.

Do not let your Lordships suppose that in this novel Council the Senate has been forgotten. On the contrary, the Senate is in a bare majority, practically. I do not think therefore the Senate has any reason to complain. You have substituted for the present governing system a system in which the University—and the Senate is the greatest body in the University—have absolute control. It is for them to take the responsibility of dividing the grants which the Commission may give them among the various competitors and I believe in that way you will produce a feeling of unity in the University which its present constitution makes quite impossible. I do not see how, without these new divisions recommended by the Committee appointed by Mr. Trevelyan, without some provisions of that kind, you are going to enable the University to deal with a situation which at present is simply un-dealt with. The University simply leaves to the University Grants Committee the whole weight of responsibility of carrying out a function which it is their business, and their business alone, to deal with, but with which, in the existing imperfection of the machinery at their disposal, they find it impossible to deal.

The general result, therefore, is that the Statutory Commission which this Bill proposes to set up will be instructed on broad lines to follow the Report of the Committee in carrying out the reforms of the Senate which I have described, both as regards exclusion and inclusion. It will carry out the almost incalculably advantageous reform of giving executive powers, or will have the opportunity of giving executive powers, to the various committees of the Senate and it will add to these, committees for the first time an authentic and authorised representation of the subordinate collegiate bodies in their corporate capacity. Above all, it will institute this University Council which will have power, which will have money, which will be of manageable numbers, which will represent all the interests which ought to be represented, which will leave a sufficient majority to the representatives of the Senate to make it certain that if the Senate is unanimous, practically unanimous, upon any course, that course will be adopted by the University Council.

I have deliberately left out a great many of the subsidiary recommendations. I have deliberately tried to turn your Lordships' attention to the broad issues which are at stake, and I think that if these broad issues are considered in the spirit in which I have endeavoured to advocate them, you will admit that the changes proposed constitute a great reform. I am aware, of course—I cannot be otherwise than aware—that changes so important as these cannot be proposed without raising alarm in certain quarters. I hope and believe that these alarms are totally unfounded. I have very ill expressed the views of the Government and the views of the Departmental Committee if I have not made it clear that we want to proceed upon the ancient lines. We want to make, I agree, great changes; we want to make no revolutions. We do not wish to destroy more than is absolutely necessary. We do not even wish to modify more than is absolutely necessary the autonomy of the various constituent elements of which the University is made up. We do want them to work altogether in far closer co-ordination than has been possible with the best will in the world under the machinery which legislation has so far provided, but the idea that we wish gratuitously to interfere with their appointments, with their organisation, with their objects—in particular, with any religious objects which particular institutions may have been founded to promote—that idea may well be dismissed from everybody's mind.

The external student, I think, gains in dignity from the changes that are proposed. He certainly does not lose in power. Those, therefore, who note with jealousy any suggestion that external students are, as it were, a blot upon the University system are labouring under a complete misapprehension. We feel, the Committee felt, the Government feel and I believe your Lordships will feel, that this great reform can be carried out and should be carried out without endangering any legitimate interests, without interfering in any way with the historical development of the University by trying forcibly to make the London University conform to the ordinary idea or practices of Universities very differently situated. Our view is that we must build on the old foundations, that we must preserve the great interests with which the University has concerned itself, that we must not attempt to run it into a uniform mould, and that we must deal sympathetically and justly with all the very different interests which the Senate represents. I feel certain that if that is done no member of the University will look back on the legislation we propose with any feeling of regret, but that when the machinery is in working order, when it is all brought into harmony with the day-to-day work of this immense institution, they will say that the Committee and the Legislature which acted upon the Committee's Report have indeed succeeded in preserving all the valuable peculiarities of the University of London and, whilst preserving those peculiarities, have done an immense work in giving it unity and, with unity, efficiency. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Balfour.)

VISCOUNT HALDANE

My Lords, I do not think it is an exaggeration to call it a scandal that this great question has not come before Parliament earlier. That is not a matter of reproach to this Government, nor yet to the last Government, nor to the Government before. It is due to a more deeply seated cause. This remarkable University question has the good fortune to-day to be the subject of a Bill embodying a definite proposition. To me it is a source of very great satisfaction that it should have reached that stage and been so definitely put forward, because there has stood in the way—and this more than anything else—an extraordinary division of opinion among men, men of eminence, men of learning, men of energy, as to the best means to get over the unfortunate situation in which the Metropolis of the Empire was placed. Here is the greatest City in the world without a properly organised teaching University. It is extraordinary that it should be so, and in no other country would it have been tolerated. But it is not so had as it looks. Although we have had no University, we have had growing up the most remarkable congeries of colleges and collegiate institutions that probably the world has ever seen in so small a centre. There are not only the two great University Colleges, University College and King's College, but there are other institutions more modern, such as the Imperial College of Science and Technology which stands as high as anything in the world.

Why is it that with this wealth of colleges growing up in the area of London the proper organisation has not come earlier? The noble Earl will remember that when he and I were in the House of Commons there was a Bill which I think I drew up and pressed though he gave time for it and fathered it. It became the London University Act, 1898. It was a thoroughly second-rate Bill because it took only the most tentative of first steps towards bringing about the establishment of a teaching University in London. There were these admirable colleges, not as large as they are to-day but very large, which trained admirable students, who had to go up for external examinations by an examining body, which is all that the London University, in substance, was. There was no power to examine them and give them degrees based on their record or on the work that they had done under the eye of their teachers. The Bill sought to remedy that position and it met with scorn in the House of Commons. The member for the University moved its rejection. A large number of other eminent people opposed it, and in the end only the conviction of the House of Commons that it went the right way ultimately carried it through Parliament.

Then there was a Commission to draw Statutes to carry it out, over which the late Lord Rayleigh presided, and finally, about the year 1900, a so-called teaching University was in existence. Teaching was one side of its activities and examining another. The noble Earl has spoken very kindly and gently about the external side of the University, and I am not going to depart from his good example, but I wish emphatically to put it on record that a student trained under a distinguished professor, who guides him not only to examinations but in his reading, and in his work in the laboratory with personal counsel, a student who has gone through three or more years of that kind of teaching, is in a very different position from a student who is crammed up for an external examination, perhaps with the aid of one of these professional schools of crammers which have become so very efficient for everything of the kind. The external student is on the up-grade in the educational estimation of the present time, and it was found that in the University of London the conflict between the outlook of the external and internal students was too great to leave alone.

In 1909 the Government of the day appointed a Royal Commission, over which I had the honour to preside. Its Report has been so much abused since that I should be doing the noble Earl a, very ill service if I stood here to-day as its strong supporter. That Report, miscalled the Haldane Report and abused under that name, was drawn up by men the weight of whose names at least might carry the thing beyond anything that could tarn on personal considerations. Among my colleagues were the late Lord Milner, the late Sir Robert Morant, Sic William McCormick, who, I rejoice to think, is still alive and has done splendid work for University education not only in London but all over the country, Sir Robert, Romer, Mrs. Creighton and others. We reported unanimously. Why was that Report so ill-received? It was not because of what we did or proposed to do to the external students. We were compelled, for the same reasons as the noble Earl, to leave them severely alone. They were too powerful, they were everywhere—country doctors brought up under the examination system, teachers who had the trade mark of an external degree of some kind from the University and had used it everywhere. The University was helping this business by conducting its examinations in remote parts of the Empire—in Ceylon, in New Zealand and all over the world—so that it had a very powerful body of people to back it up. We looked at the external side and gave it the means to look after itself. What we concentrated on was the student with whom record was more important than examination and who made an attempt to stand for that which an undergraduate stands for in Oxford, Cambridge and other Universities where the student works under his teacher.

That Royal Commission took four years to report and then reported unanimously. What was the pith and substance of its Report? The very thing of which the noble Earl has told us—a smaller Senate. The Senate, then as now, had fifty-six members, and it was a hopeless body with every kind of divided counsel in it and impotent to get through the business. We suggested quite a small Senate, not nominated by partisan influence, but chosen by the Crown and by other bodies, and we proposed to give the University a great court in which it could hold its parliament and, as it were, blow itself off. That proposal has been passed by, perhaps wisely, in the present Report. I never cared for it. The present Report originated, as the noble Earl has told us, in a Departmental Committee appointed by the last Government, of which my noble friend Lord Ernle was at first Chairman, though afterwards ill-health compelled him to relinquish that rather difficult position, and he was succeeded by Mr. Hilton Young. Now we have a Report the substance of which, as the noble Earl has told us, is not a small Senate—that, is waving the red flag in the face of the wild bull—but a small financial council which will manage the business of the University under the Senate, which will counsel the Senate, persuade the Senate and lead the Senate into paths in which the Senate should go—at least, we hope so. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that a small body of that kind is essential, and I also agree with the principle recommended in the Report of delegating executive control throughout the teaching arrangements.

For the rest, the Bill assumes a form which is now very familiar. It takes the Report, it schedules it to the Bill, and says that Commissioners are to be appointed for the purpose of giving effect to the principles of the Report, with such modifications as circumstances may lead them to think desirable. I think that is the only way in which the matter could have been dealt with. I congratulate the Government on having tackled a very awkward and thorny question, and I am delighted to think that there is now a prospect of carrying the matter through. When it goes through it will still take a good deal of time to work things out, but at least you will have got this element of difference between the University of London as it stands to-day and the University of London as it will stand. You will have a central mind to which the colleges can contribute, and a mind which can direct and put together the types of study which are there in the University.

Things have changed very much almost within the last few months. The external side of London University drew its students from outside, from colleges which could give no degrees and whose students came up and took the external examination. The new University of Reading was a handsome contributor in that way. The noble Earl will remember other enterprises in which we joined of establishing the new Universities of Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, Bristol and other places. I think we added among us, including the new Irish Universities, ten teaching Universities. These have all taken from those who formerly came up to the external side of the University of London and by the forces of gravitation, or whatever are their equivalent in these days, the internal side of London University is becoming more and more important. Now this common mind will at once set to work to see that this great University area of London represents a real University area, that there is no overlapping, and that there is more adequate provision of laboratories and other things than exists at the present time. The noble Earl has explained to us the purport of the Bill very clearly. I entirely agree with his diagnosis of the situation, and my great hope is that the Bill will become law as quickly as possible.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, the noble Earl who introduced the Bill, in accordance with what we should have expected from him with his ripe experience and wisdom, dealt with simply the large principles which the Bill contains and did not, as he told us, go into details which may properly be the subject of discussion in Committee. But there is one point on which I want to say something, because it does not seem to me to be quite a detail. It concerns the principle of the Bill and affects more than one part of it. I yield to no one in my recognition of the importance of London University to the educational life of England as we stand to-day, but I want to call attention to the importance in that University of the theological faculty, and not only what that is doing, but is capable of doing, and likely to do, in the coming years.

What I am rather anxious about is the virtual absence from the Report itself of any practical reference to the problems raised with regard to the theological schools in the University and the complete absence of such reference from the actual Bill before us. The theological schools now affiliated or belonging to the London University are five in number—two attached to the Church of England and three to other religious bodies, and all of them in active operation, with in some cases the prospect of very greatly increased activity in the coming years. It is of real importance that care should be taken to see that these theological schools do not suffer detriment in any way from the legislation which is now impending. That the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, is friendly to that element in University life needs no word from me or any one who knows what his actions have been. I do not mistrust him for one moment, but when we turn from what he expresses to the actual measure itself, or to the Report upon which it is based, we find some marked facts.

One is that the theological part of the University has no representation, under the new measure, on the Senate, and further, that the rules laid down under which the schools of the University are to be admitted or continued seem to require that they shall be very greatly modified if they are to be made applicable to the theological schools. The modifications are not suggested, but any one will see that some modification is absolutely necessary. The Commissioners have some power under the Bill, as drawn, not merely to give effect to the Report of the Committee but to modify it where they see that modification is necessary, but we have no evidence before us that can be relied upon that they will effect such modifications. The argument, I have no doubt, is that you must trust the Senate, that the Senate will have power to act with consideration for all the schools which are affiliated to the University, and therefore for the theological schools along with the others. The answer, no doubt, is that there are to be modifications of the rules to make them applicable to those schools and that the Senate may be trusted to do that.

I am prepared to trust the Senate. In ordinary circumstances I have not the slightest doubt that the thing will be fairly dealt with, but I should like to see the gravity of the situation really recognised. When I heard the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, refer to the theological side I waited with interest to hear what changes were thought to be necessary to safeguard those interests. As things stand the theological schools have some representation, though it is not very marked, upon the Senate, because King's College, which has its theological side, has two members on the body. It is proposed that the college should have one representative only if the Report is carried out, and there is no reason to suppose that the theological side rather than any other will be represented on the Senate.

Much more marked than that, however, is the way in which the schools of the University are described in the rules governing the admission or re-admission of an institution as a school of the University. The first is that the University is satisfied with the constitution of the governing body of the institution and with the Statutes under which it is governed. I do not know that that would require any modification; but then we come to the next: That the institution recognises the right of the Council of the University to negotiate on the institution's behalf with public grant-giving bodies, and to receive and allocate the grants available for University education in London. There are no grants; we get no Government grants for that. The theological colleges are not supported out of public funds at all, but are supported by private contributions; therefore that phrase is inapplicable.

But the next rule goes on to say: That the institution undertakes not to issue a public appeal for money without first obtaining the consent of the Council of the University. The theological colleges receive no money from the Government, and unless the Council of the University consents they could not make an appeal to other people to give it. I do not suppose for a moment that that would be allowed to remain as an obstacle—a modification would be made to meet the requirements; but it ought to be made in some way or other perfectly clear to us from the first that it is intended that the theological side shall be free to act in the way in which it must act if it is to carry on its work at all, and that the Senate and Council of the University would support it in so doing. The last rule reads: That the institution relinquishes to the University the appointment of such of its principal teacher; as the Senate may determine. I think I understood the noble Earl to say with regard to that, that he recognised it was obvious that the theological college or school could not relegate to the Senate of the University the appoint- ment of its theological teachers, nor would the authorities of the University desire that it should do so.

All that I want to point out is that it seems to me that when we come to a later stage we shall be anxious to know whether it is not possible to safeguard rather more definitely the interests of the theological department of London University as a, whole, as constituted by its five separate schools, and that some care should be taken to show that their interests are properly remembered and safeguarded. Admirable men—and there is one lady—are named under the Bill as Commissioners to go into that matter. No one of them has special qualifications peculiarly suited for making him the arbiter or adviser with regard to the theological department, but that no doubt is due, I imagine, to the view entertained that in appointing those men it was not desirable that any one of them should seem to be too limited in the range of his knowledge or his experience, so as to make him a representative of, I will not say some partisan body, but of sonic small section only. That, no doubt, is the reason, but none the less we who are interested in the theological side see very clearly that we shall want, if our interests are to be properly secured for the future, some further assurance than we have already obtained with regard to that matter.

It may easily be said, and no doubt will be said in some quarters: "Your theological schools are not asking for money, and therefore we do not see any real reason why, because you still live in London and make use of London University for some of your work, you should ask for any special recognition or special status with respect to the University and its life. You are outsiders in one sense, because you are not the recipients of grants; you might be outsiders in other senses by standing aside from the secular side of the teaching." A thing that I am more anxious to advocate than anything else with regard to the theological teaching in our Universities is that the two things should be not sundered, that the theological teaching should be linked together in the most marked way with the general educational life of the highest branch of education in the country. We hear criticisms often—I will not say they are fair—about the danger that our theological colleges may be isolating from other people men who are going to exercise the calling of the ministry, to the great disadvantage of the men themselves and possibly of the University with which they may be associated, and possibly also of the public at large. I believe entirely in the amalgamation and working together of the theological and what we may call the secular side of the training of men, either in connection with the Universities or outside Universities, who are going to exercise the calling of the ministry, and I dread anything which might seem to put those men a little apart from the trend and drift of the highest University education by provisions which may now be coming into force.

I know such is not the intention of the noble Earl who introduced this Bill. I cannot believe that it is in the least the intention of the Report as a whole, as it is now worded, or that the Commissioners who have been appointed are men who would do it; but I think we want to be satisfied that there is something a little more marked as to the status, the position and the welcome that is given to the theological side of University life at a moment when, for reasons which I could easily give, it is likely to become more and more important as the years go on, and more and more to call for a linking in the fullest way with the highest educational life of this University or of the country.

VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD

My Lords, I approach the proposals embodied in this Bill from two points of view: in the first place, from the point of view of University College, no inconsiderable or unimportant part of the University, and of which I have been Chairman for the past five years; in the second place, from the point of view of one who has had to work a Statutory Commission and the machinery of a Statutory Commission for the past three years. From both these points of view I wish most cordially to support the provisions of this Bill. I shall not dwell upon the controversies which have been alluded to by the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading and by my noble friend behind me. Those controversies have always been with London University, and it is because we all recognise that the position is intolerable at the present moment that we who form the constituent parts of the. University are prepared to give up some of the privileges which we possess at the present moment and welcome this attempt to reform the University of London.

When the Departmental Committee reported, we, in University College, at once took their Report into consideration. We considered it very carefully, not only in the College Committee but also in our academic body, the Professorial Board. The general position of these two bodies was that they wished to give a general blessing to the proposals of this Bill. I do not suggest for one moment that these two bodies were not critical of certain proposals contained in the Departmental Committee's Report, but what we felt was that the machinery of a Statutory Commission offered a solution of the present unsatisfactory position in the University of London, and, as to those matters to which we took exception, the proper stage at which to raise our objections would be when the Statutory Commission began to sit and began to make Statutes; we could then raise the various points of criticism which we had to make against the recommendations of the Departmental Committee.

The noble Earl, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, emphasised to your Lordships the position of that important body which is recommended to be set up in the Report of the Departmental Committee—namely, the University Council. That is an entirely new conception, and it is round this new creation of a University Council that the controversy is going to rage. No doubt the noble Earl is familiar with the Minority Report of the Departmental Committee and it is on the relations between the Senate and this new University Council that the main criticism and the main opposition will be based. In explaining the position of the University Council and the real necessity for such a body, the noble Earl informed your Lordships that grants of public money have to be made at present through the University Grants Committee and the London County Council. But he did not bring to your notice, and naturally so, the amount of money that is really involved each year in these grants from outside bodies to the University of London. On page 19 of the Report the Committee give the total sums that were contributed both by the Treasury, through the University Grants Committee, and the London County Council, in the year 1924–25. They amounted to £377,695 from the Treasury and £78,366 from the London County Council. I may say that, roughly speaking, the revenue of my own college for the year is somewhere about £172,006 and at least half of that comes from grants by outside bodies—the Treasury and the London County Council.

Having had to approach these bodies—the University Grants Committee and the London County Council—on behalf of University College, I should naturally regret the change from the old state of things, because when one went to the University Grants Committee or the London County Council one found they were bodies who were experts in their subject, who criticised our educational proposals, who watched with very great care how the various departments were progressing, who pointed out some of our mistakes and said: "Do you not think this is hardly worth keeping going?" or "Do you not think that requires a little more money?" From that point of view, the selfish point of view of one who is Chairman of University College, I shall regret that very liberal education which one received from having these meetings with the University Grants Committee and the London County Council. But when we considered this question in the meetings of our College we came to the conclusion that the present position was quite indefensible. We felt that, though we regretted having to forego these firsthand dealings with these authorities, we could not resist the proposals, because the true principle was that the grants should be made to the University itself. And when we read the recommendations of the Departmental Committee we felt that we could have confidence in the University Council which is proposed by the Departmental Committee. We felt also that it was essential that these outside authorities—the London County Council and the University Grants Committee—should have complete confidence in the University body which would advise upon and distribute these grants.

May I read one passage from the Report of the London County Council on this very subject last year? It puts the matter bluntly, I might say even rudely, but it shows how strongly these outside bodies feel on the subject. The Council resolved on July 7, 1925:— That, in the best interests of the University and of the Council, the financial arrangements between them should provide that the total grant fixed by the Council in aid of University education in London should be given as a block grant to the Senate, but that, while the constitution and powers Of the Senate remain as at present, the Council does not feel it possible to adopt this arrangement. Could anything be more emphatic than that declaration of policy on the part of the London County Council, that so long as the Senate is constituted as it is at present it will have nothing to do with the suggested scheme of financial help?

The Departmental Committee strongly recommend a point which was enforced in the speech of the noble Earl in moving the Second Reading of the Bill—that the present Senate is too large for any such work as is suggested. It is said, on page 26 of the Report:— We may say at once that we do not regard a large assembly, such as the Senate must inevitably be, as suitable to negotiate with public grant-giving authorities on behalf of the University and its colleges. The Minority Report of the Departmental Committee suggests that this is whittling away the position of the Senate as the authoritative body and says that there will be difficulties and disputes in future between the Senate and the new University Council. I think the Report of the Departmental Committee makes it clear that the Senate's position is to be supreme in matters educational and that it is only on the financial side that the University Council will come in. Surely, it is not beyond the wit of man to devise a system by which these two bodies can work in co-operation and in harmony.

In this connection I have had to try to arrange at Oxford a system by which the Hebdomadal Council, the Chest and the General Board of Faculties should be able to carry on their proceedings in cooperation and in harmony, and to arrange machinery by which in cases of dispute a deadlock could be removed and the will of one or the other should prevail. There was no difficulty about it by means of the machinery of the Statutory Commission. We kept in the closest touch with all these bodies when we were devising the scheme and through their friendly co-operation we were able to surmount those difficulties. I feel confident that by means of this machinery of a Statutory Commission similar difficulties in connection with the University of London will be overcome if the University bodies, whether the University itself or the colleges, are determined to give goodwill and help. In regard to the machinery of the Statutory Commission, the general words are that the Statutory Commission shall make Statutes in general accordance with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee. That follows the Oxford and Cambridge Universities Act of 1923. And then it says "with such modifications as may seem expedient." We interpreted the words "in general accordance with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee" as meaning that the Statutory Commission was to observe the basic principles which had been laid down, whether by a Royal Commission, as in our case, or a Departmental Committee, as in this; but that within those basic principles it was able to make modifications.

The most rev. Primate mentioned just now a difficulty which weighed especially with him in connection with the theological faculties. It is not my business to make suggestions, but may I respectfully suggest to him that if he refers to what happened in connection with the Universities Act of 1923 he will see that certain bodies at Oxford and Cambridge who had recent trusts, some of them religious trusts, obtained certain protection. I do not suggest that his position is on all fours with that, but, at all events, it would be quite possible if the Government think that the case of the theological colleges needs, and ought to have, a protection, to insert some clause which would give that protection to them as was given in the case of Hertford College and other colleges that had recent trusts. Apart from that there is, of course, the protection which he could always get through the. Statutory Commission when they come to make their Statutes. They would, within the general principles of the Bill, be able to give him ample protection. I am sorry to have detained your Lordships even this short time, and I wish cordially to support the Bill.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, it will not be necessary for me to detain you very long. I am only anxious to direct your Lordships' attention to one single point in this Bill and to rein- force, if I can, what has been already said by the most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. I wish to voice the uneasiness that is felt by those who are interested in the theological colleges which are associated with the University in regard to this Bill. This is a Bill upon which we should all wish to see a general agreement. I think we owe our thanks to the noble Earl, the Lord President of the Council, for the most conciliatory manner in which he introduced this measure. But there are theological colleges, including New College at Hampstead, which is Congregationalist; Regent's Park College, which is Baptist; and the Wesleyan College at Richmond, as well as King's College and St. John's Hall, Highgate, which are concerned.

Your Lordships will notice that under the Bill the Statutes are to be made by the Commissioners named in the Bill and they must be made upon the basis of the Report. Whatever the Commissioners may think to be the proper course to take, however much they may think that a Statute should not be made in a particular sense, they must do it if it is so directed in this Report of the Departmental Committee. If your Lordships will turn to page 56 of the Departmental Committee's Report, which has already been referred to by the most rev. Primate, your Lordships will see that under paragraph 10 (b) the Council of the University is to negotiate with public grant-giving bodies. Imagine that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or even the General Assembly of the Church of England, or some of those general assemblies which govern the various denominations that I have mentioned, wish to give donations, it seems to me quite unnecessary that they should enter into negotiations with the Council of the University and that they should not be allowed to engage directly with the governing body of the theological college concerned.

Again, there are existing trusts for theological colleges and there are these denominational bodies to which I have already referred. These are to be forced, according to the scheme of the Departmental Committee, to consult, or rather to negotiate, with the Council of the University and not with the governing body of the theological college concerned. The most rev. Primate has already referred to the condition that they are not even to issue a public request for money without the sanction of the Council of the University. But, most important of all, the institution relinquishes to the University the appointment of such of its principal teachers as the Senate may determine. It is quite obvious that it will be very difficult indeed for any theological college to accept a condition of that kind and to hand over to another body, on which there is no guarantee of sympathy, the appointment of its principal teachers. It will be agreed that that, at any rate, is a very strong request to make to these theological colleges.

The safeguards which exist do not seem to me to be entirely satisfactory. I may be told that the consent which is necessary under Clause 4 of the Bill will be sufficient and also that it would be perfectly obvious that the Senate would do nothing which would be disagreeable to the council of the theological college. But I should like safeguards a little more substantial than those and I do not think it is an unreasonable request to make. The most rev. Primate suggested that there should be upon this Commission somebody who would represent the experience of the theological colleges. Whether that would be sufficient or not entirely to meet the case I am not prepared to say, but there is, as your Lordships may know, a considerable amount of protest on the part of the Senate and of Convocation against some of the provisions of this Departmental Commission. Apart from those provisions, to which I do not desire to refer, I do wish once more to urge upon His Majesty's Government the importance of making this, as far as possible, an agreed Bill, and giving time between now and Committee stage to allow such negotiations to take place as will permit of the uneasiness to which I have referred being removed and the measure being passed practically as an agreed Bill.

THE EARL OF BALFOUR

My Lords, we have had some very interesting speeches, but I think the only serious criticism of the Bill has come from the most rev. Primate and the noble Earl who has just sat down. As far as I remember, the other speakers were, on the whole, strongly in favour of the measure which I have had the honour to introduce. The noble Earl and the most rev. Primate, however, are afraid that the Bill touches the theological colleges or endangers in sonic respects their position. I am entirely in favour of considering that matter in detail when we come to Committee, but I ought at this stage to say that I believe the fears that have been expressed are really quite groundless. The general policy of the Legislature with regard to the University of London is embodied in a Schedule to the London University Act of 1898, and that provides that no religious tests shall be adopted or imposed and no applicant for a University appointment shall be at any disadvantage on the ground of religious principles. That represents the policy and the last thing the Government desire to do is in any way to modify to their disadvantage the position of the theological colleges.

I cannot help thinking that both the most rev. Primate and the noble Earl who has just spoken are under sonic misconception as to the effect of the Bill. The Bill does not really touch any of the matters of which they are afraid. The noble Earl, for example, called the attention of your Lordships to the last paragraph on page 56 of the Report which requires that a new college of the University must relinquish to the Senate the appointment of such of its principal teachers as the Senate may determine. It is quite certain that nobody desires with regard to the new denominational colleges that they shall ask the Senate to do what the Senate cannot do, which is to deal with a theological problem. That is as regards the future. That is an observation which touches colleges which are new—religious colleges or denominational colleges which the most rev. Primate and the noble Earl suggest might be brought into existence. I am quite ready to consider that problem in Committee, but I think what was most exercising the noble Earl and the most rev. Primate was whether this clause would effect the interests of existing colleges.

It would not affect them and it cannot affect the interest of existing colleges. If the most rev. Primate will look at the first sentence of the paragraph headed, "Schools of the University" he will see that (d), like (a), (b) and (c), refers to the conditions governing the admission or readmission of institutions to the University. A school which is already a school of the University, which does not ask for admission and does not require readmission, cannot be touched under paragraph 10 on page 56. Therefore, so far as existing interests are concerned, I am quite unable to see how the least peril threatens any of the institutions on whose behalf the most rev. Primate and the noble Earl have spoken. If it be thought necessary we might, when we come to the Committee stage, consider the possibility of new theological schools coming into existence and examine whether they are not also protected. I think they are. I believe they are protected, for example, by such sentences as those read out from the Schedule of the University of London Act, 1898. It is quite certain, if anything in this world is certain, that the last thing the University of London as constituted or reconstituted desires to do in the present or in the future is to interfere with the theological side of any subsidiary institution. That is entirely outside its whole method of dealing with things.

Somebody ignorant of the facts might say: "Well, cannot those who have a prejudice on these subjects instinctively use their power of giving or withholding money to the detriment of some of these theological colleges?" But the theological colleges ask for no money. The question of public money does not come in. There is no threat that I can see that can be held out to existing colleges or to any college that may come into existence in the future. It seems to me they are not in the smallest degree threatened by anything in this Bill. The noble Earl and the most rev. Primate may disagree with me on the drafting question, but at all events I hope they will be content with the statement in principle that the last thing we desire and the last thing I am sure this Bill will, in any sense, accomplish is to threaten institutions which within the University have, I believe, done admirable work in the past, are doing admirable work in the present and, as the most rev. Primate suggested in his speech, are on the eve of carrying out an even greater and more important work than that on which they have been engaged.

I think I need not say any more, except, perhaps, on one point. The most rev. Primate expressed his strong opinion that the teaching of those who are to take part in the religious ministry would be far better carried on in institutions not entirely devoted to theological purposes. He expressed that view strongly and as far as I am concerned—of course I do not speak in such a matter for the Government—I most heartily endorse it. I believe it is the very essence of the healthy education of those who have to deal with religious questions of the day, and I should be most unhappy if I thought anything done or suggested by the present Government should tend to destroy a system which in itself I think incomparably better than the narrower view of theological education which prevails, I have to admit, in very high quarters. So far as my opinion is of any value in such a discussion, I am unreservedly on the side of the most rev. Primate.

On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.